Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with and determined his planning applications. It was reasonable for Mr X to have used his Planning Inspectorate appeal against the Council’s refusal of his 2019 application so there are no grounds to investigate it now. Mr X used his Inspectorate appeal after the Council refused his 2020 application, which takes that planning process outside our jurisdiction. Investigation of the pre-application advice would not lead to any different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a planning applicant. He complains the Council misled him into pursuing his planning applications while being against them from the start, and failed to follow its planning policies.
2. Mr X says he has spent thousands of pounds over three years following the Council’s advice, to try to gain planning permission, and the matter has caused he and his co-applicant wife enormous amount of stress. He wants the Council to reimburse his costs, or change the decision on his planning application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b))
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
5. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• a decision to refuse planning permission
• conditions placed on planning permission
• a planning enforcement notice.

6. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X;
• relevant online planning documents;
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X made two applications to the Council for a residential development, one in 2019 and one in 2020.
9. In respect of the 2019 planning permission which the Council refused in late 2019, Mr X had appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate against that decision. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his appeal to the Inspectorate at the time. The Inspectorate is the formal body created by national government to consider such appeals. Mr X was represented by a planning professional during the application and would have been aware of his appeal right. Where such an appeal right exists and was reasonable for someone to use, we will not investigate, as paragraph three above states. That is the case here, so there are no grounds to investigate this part of the complaint now.
10. That it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use his appeal is supported by the events in Mr X’s 2020 application, because he appealed to the Inspectorate against that second Council decision.
11. The Council refused Mr X’s 2020 application in autumn 2020. He appealed to the Inspectorate, which dismissed his appeal in summer 2021. Mr X’s Inspectorate appeal on this 2020 application takes this planning process outside our jurisdiction, as paragraph four above explains. We cannot investigate a planning process which has been the subject of an Inspectorate appeal. We do not have any powers to go behind or amend any of the Inspectorate’s decisions or findings. If Mr X disagrees with the appeal decision, that would be a complaint against the Inspectorate.
12. Mr X considers the Council’s pre-application advice for both applications, issued in 2019 and 2020, was misleading. Pre-application advice is not binding on councils. Officers determining the application are not required to make a decision in accordance with advice given prior to an application being submitted. Mr X was represented during both of the planning applications. It was for him and his co‑applicant to decide, taking into account the advice of their planning agents, whether or not to proceed with the applications at each stage. Given how the planning matters have moved on since 2020, and the lack of our powers to alter the Inspectorate’s 2021 decision, there would be no different outcome such as a planning or other benefit to be achieved for Mr X by investigating this part of the complaint now.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• it was reasonable for him to have used his Planning Inspectorate appeal against the Council’s refusal of his 2019 application;
• his use of his Inspectorate appeal against the Council’s refusal of his 2020 application takes that planning matter outside jurisdiction; and
• investigation of the Council’s pre-application advice would not lead to any different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman